Is Evolution really so "sure"?

[ThaPerculator]

It's too bad the Theory of Evolution does not work with humans. The burger flipping dopers are getting more play than the successful computer geeks.

That's because the computer geeks are humbly content with getting points and attaining new levels in Evercrack, while the dopers hate what they do and need to party/mate with the closest available object to take their minds off of their daily lives.

And, well, for the most part chicks don't dig dudes who sit on the computer all day. :beer:

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Jittles
There is no hard scientific evidence of evolution being a fact as some of you said. Zero, zip, nada, nothin. Never once has anybody observed, directly or indirectly, any new genetic information being created. Copying old information is not evolution. Adapting by losing or not using certain information and using other information already present is not evolution.

try at the microbiological level - bacteria and such.

 

[merlocka]

I wish posters at ATOT would evolve into people who know how to use the search button.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Jittles
There is no hard scientific evidence of evolution being a fact as some of you said. Zero, zip, nada, nothin. Never once has anybody observed, directly or indirectly, any new genetic information being created. Copying old information is not evolution. Adapting by losing or not using certain information and using other information already present is not evolution.

Really? Funny, I seem to think that UV light can actually distort base pairs, either causing copying errors or making genes entirely useless. In fact, this has been replicated in labs THOUSANDS of times.

Secondly, you seem to misunderstand evolution. It doesn't occur in ONE organism. Over time the group of organisms with the best genes for survival live on a breed. Eventually, an entire population contains the new trait simply because the ones with the new trait survive the best.

Thank you, but you're wrong.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Jittles
There is no hard scientific evidence of evolution being a fact as some of you said. Zero, zip, nada, nothin. Never once has anybody observed, directly or indirectly, any new genetic information being created. Copying old information is not evolution. Adapting by losing or not using certain information and using other information already present is not evolution.

i'm not clear on what the distinction you make between adaptation and evolution is.

and what do you mean by "new genetic information"? do you mean mutations? we have seen that...

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Jittles

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but scientists like myself define evolution as the change in allele frequencies over time. You're missing the point of evolution with your misconceived focus on introduction of new genes. However, you'd also be wrong in asserting that has never happened--speciation has been observed to occur through polyploidy in plants.

Explain please. I don't care how technical, I just don't understand what you mean, and I can't say you're right or wrong if I have no clue.

In simple terms, evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population, whether by changes in frequencies of alleles (alternative forms of a gene, such as those responsible for different hair colors) or by the introduction of new genes by interbreeding of previously separated populations, viral/bacterial genetic modification of the genome (parasites have transcribed themselves into mammalian genomes, hence the worries about growing human organs in pigs), or mutation.

Changes in allele frequences can and do produce new species. Species are distinguished by morphology (physical characteristics) and inability to interbreed. A new species generally arises when an external event, such as a peninsula becoming an island when sea levels rose or a lake being broken into two smaller lakes when the water level declined, causes a separation of an existing species into two groups. The two groups cannot interbreed due to the barrier, and their different environments favor alternate sets of characteristics, leading to substantial differences in morphology and an inability to interbreed once the barrier is removed given enough time. Ernst Mayr's 1970 text Populations, Species, and Evolution discusses an speciation example of this type--the emergence of 5 new species of cichlids due to a small portion of a lake becoming isolated from the remainder of the lake.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Ranger X
It's too bad the Theory of Evolution does not work with humans. The burger flipping dopers are getting more play than the successful computer geeks. 😉😛

i know it's a joke, but just wanted to clarify... the theory of evolution doesn't imply that smarter people will get laid more. it implies that if the burger flipping dopers are getting laid more, then eventually humans will have more traits from burger flipping dopers than successful computer geeks.

 

[edro]

How is this hard for people to understand.

Evolution is NOT debatable! It is happening as we speak!

Now whether or not you believe in the evolution of humans, from another previous version (homo erectus, in your example), that IS debatable.

Every single birth is another step in evolution.

Evolution takes a long time.

 

[Descartes]

Why do people always regurgitate the same thing that's been said in a thread only a few posts later? Several resources have been posted for the obdurates to educate themselves...

 

[Jittles]

For all you responding to me, you don't understand, and honestly -I can't explain it-

Read that book I posted, I won't post anymore for now since I have not enough knowledge to back it up. Although this won't stop people from posting that I'm wrong and blah blah.

Anything you have posted so far with UV rays and mutation and whatnot, I still don't see evidence of evolution. I see in no way this leads from single cell to humans.

EDIT: I'm not being ignorant and just denying it, I just don't believe that the definition of 'evolution' is very clear in the cases people describe. The "evolution" pointed out points to no evidence of evolution in the sense that new genetic information is formed from duplication, mutation, whatever, to go from nothing (nucleic acids I think?) to humans.

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: Jittles
For all you responding to me, you don't understand, and honestly -I can't explain it-

Read that book I posted, I won't post anymore for now since I have not enough knowledge to back it up. Although this won't stop people from posting that I'm wrong and blah blah.

Anything you have posted so far with UV rays and mutation and whatnot, I still don't see evidence of evolution. I see in no way this leads from single cell to humans.

EDIT: I'm not being ignorant and just denying it, I just don't believe that the definition of 'evolution' is very clear in the cases people describe. The "evolution" pointed out points to no evidence of evolution in the sense that new genetic information is formed from duplication, mutation, whatever, to go from nothing (nucleic acids I think?) to humans.

I can't do a good job explaining it. Are you willing to read a book by someoen who can do a good Job?
Try Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins.

Stephen Jay Gould


Richard Dawkins

 

[Jittles]

Here he has very little to go on, but the suggestions are fertile, because they do point to where one would have to go in order to pursue the selfish gene theory.

This is from a professor who wrote a paper on Dawkins' book. He is by no means against it.

This sums up what I think some people don't get. Yes, suggestions are "fertile" and they "point" in the right direction, but there are no FACTS. There are creationist scientists that have their own theories that are "fertile" and "point" in the right direction also, but on completely different grounds.

I can't say evolution is bogus (even if I believe it is) and I can't say creation and intelligent design is right.

I have my beliefs and it stands that evolution is not fact, and neither is creation, but with my faith I believe the latter.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Jittles

Here he has very little to go on, but the suggestions are fertile, because they do point to where one would have to go in order to pursue the selfish gene theory.

This is from a professor who wrote a paper on Dawkins' book. He is by no means against it.

This sums up what I think some people don't get. Yes, suggestions are "fertile" and they "point" in the right direction, but there are no FACTS. There are creationist scientists that have their own theories that are "fertile" and "point" in the right direction also, but on completely different grounds.

I can't say evolution is bogus (even if I believe it is) and I can't say creation and intelligent design is right.

I have my beliefs and it stands that evolution is not fact, and neither is creation, but with my faith I believe the latter.

You're incorrigible.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Skoorb, if your problem is lack of fossil evidence, then you should forget ever having "proof". The chance of an animal being fossilized is VERY thin. Judging from special cases resulting from unusual geomorphic events that preserve more animals than normal, 1/10,000 species that ever lived have been preserved as fossils. The fossil evidence that does exist more than proves that evolution happens, as if you couldn't see it right before your eyes anyway (see DrNoobie's post)..

 

[Antisocial Virge]

I still don't see evidence of evolution. I see in no way this leads from single cell to humans

Sperm and egg do it in 9 months. How hard is it to believe that adaptation over time couldn't have done it over 1000's of years?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge

I still don't see evidence of evolution. I see in no way this leads from single cell to humans

Sperm and egg do it in 9 months. How hard is it to believe that adaptation over time couldn't have done it over 1000's of years?

There are bacteria colonies now that have animal and plant characteristics. There are fish that have legs and lungs. There are squirrels that fly. In Trinidad, there were lizards in our yard that looked like a cross between birds and dinosaurs running on 2 legs. Animals are as valuable as any transitional fossils.

 

[Jittles]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge

I still don't see evidence of evolution. I see in no way this leads from single cell to humans

Sperm and egg do it in 9 months. How hard is it to believe that adaptation over time couldn't have done it over 1000's of years?

There are bacteria colonies now that have animal and plant characteristics. There are fish that have legs and lungs. There are squirrels that fly. In Trinidad, there were lizards in our yard that looked like a cross between birds and dinosaurs running on 2 legs. Animals are as valuable as any transitional fossils.

Why do you assume that they gained those characteristics instead of some other life form losing other characteristics? Entirely probable and possible, although no missing links either way.

What I just said is from that book I suggested you read. Completely scientificly backed up.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Jittles

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge

I still don't see evidence of evolution. I see in no way this leads from single cell to humans

Sperm and egg do it in 9 months. How hard is it to believe that adaptation over time couldn't have done it over 1000's of years?

There are bacteria colonies now that have animal and plant characteristics. There are fish that have legs and lungs. There are squirrels that fly. In Trinidad, there were lizards in our yard that looked like a cross between birds and dinosaurs running on 2 legs. Animals are as valuable as any transitional fossils.

Why do you assume that they gained those characteristics instead of some other life form losing other characteristics? Entirely probable and possible, although no missing links either way.

What I just said is from that book I suggested you read. Completely scientificly backed up.

Wether they lost or gain the characteristics it is still evolution.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Jittles

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge

I still don't see evidence of evolution. I see in no way this leads from single cell to humans

Sperm and egg do it in 9 months. How hard is it to believe that adaptation over time couldn't have done it over 1000's of years?

There are bacteria colonies now that have animal and plant characteristics. There are fish that have legs and lungs. There are squirrels that fly. In Trinidad, there were lizards in our yard that looked like a cross between birds and dinosaurs running on 2 legs. Animals are as valuable as any transitional fossils.

Why do you assume that they gained those characteristics instead of some other life form losing other characteristics? Entirely probable and possible, although no missing links either way.

What I just said is from that book I suggested you read. Completely scientificly backed up.

Wether they lost or gain the characteristics it is still evolution.

Roger.

 

[BlackJesus03]

Originally posted by: Jittles
There is no hard scientific evidence of evolution being a fact as some of you said. Zero, zip, nada, nothin. Never once has anybody observed, directly or indirectly, any new genetic information being created. Copying old information is not evolution. Adapting by losing or not using certain information and using other information already present is not evolution.

Are you serious? What happens if Mr. Fishy has the ability to not only breathe water, but oxygen as well. Then, all the worlds oceans dry up and he is forced to move onto land. He uses the air-breathing-system-thingy and loses the water-breathing-system-thingy. Then millions and trillions of years later, the atmophere becomes toxic to anything that has the water-breathing-system-thingy. Subsequently, Mr. Fishy lives and spreads his happy little seed as a direct result of losing that other stuff. How is that not evolution again?

P.S. You might want to tell these guys they have it wrong- dictionary.com😀

 

[Martin]

Alabama's really taking its toll on you, isn't it?

You'll crack soon, and it won't be pretty.

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
Skoorb, if your problem is lack of fossil evidence, then you should forget ever having "proof". The chance of an animal being fossilized is VERY thin. Judging from special cases resulting from unusual geomorphic events that preserve more animals than normal, 1/10,000 species that ever lived have been preserved as fossils. The fossil evidence that does exist more than proves that evolution happens, as if you couldn't see it right before your eyes anyway (see DrNoobie's post)..

uuhhh....where's the fossils?

The only fossil evidence I remember seeing turned out to be fake. Whether it was a genetically mutated human bone, or a bone from a pig, I don't think I've ever seen a "head to toe" skelecton of homo erectus et al

 

[alkemyst]

without debating anything....

I will say scientists and creationist often times have no idea on the 'evolution' they are speaking of.

I will say even in books definitions for evolution are incorrect...these make great fodder for the zealots that love to prove scientists wrong.

The only God can truly create new species argument is as simple as talking about 'hybrids' whether animal or plant.

Then you have cloning and where does that fall into the whole scheme of things, yet again doesn't disprove a God, but does give rise to other tangents.

The big answer with evolution is it's not supposed to be common. It's nature's answer to preventing a 'creature/thing' from dying out. It's pretty easy to adapt to many things without evolving so evolutions are pretty rare and very gradual. It's like losing weight and looking in the mirror each day....you never think anything has changed (assuming your clothes were too tight to begin with), but someone that has not seen you in 2 months may hardly recognize you....

Unfortunately with 'evolutionary' research you can't just go back in time and see everything go. It becomes not only finding two things but finding enough of those two things to link them together. Sometimes the puzzle pieces fit together and look alright but in time you find out they actually belong to another puzzle.

Å

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: BlackJesus03

Originally posted by: Jittles
There is no hard scientific evidence of evolution being a fact as some of you said. Zero, zip, nada, nothin. Never once has anybody observed, directly or indirectly, any new genetic information being created. Copying old information is not evolution. Adapting by losing or not using certain information and using other information already present is not evolution.

Are you serious? What happens if Mr. Fishy has the ability to not only breathe water, but oxygen as well. Then, all the worlds oceans dry up and he is forced to move onto land. He uses the air-breathing-system-thingy and loses the water-breathing-system-thingy. Then millions and trillions of years later, the atmophere becomes toxic to anything that has the water-breathing-system-thingy. Subsequently, Mr. Fishy lives and spreads his happy little seed as a direct result of losing that other stuff. How is that not evolution again?

P.S. You might want to tell these guys they have it wrong- dictionary.com😀

If all the world's oceans dried up how could mr fishy evolve if there is no water for him to live in? How would he just miraciously have legs? His gills just become usless and he starts breathing through his mouth? How is that possible?

Oh, just wait, the answer is that it took a million billion trillion years.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: BlackJesus03

Originally posted by: Jittles
There is no hard scientific evidence of evolution being a fact as some of you said. Zero, zip, nada, nothin. Never once has anybody observed, directly or indirectly, any new genetic information being created. Copying old information is not evolution. Adapting by losing or not using certain information and using other information already present is not evolution.

Are you serious? What happens if Mr. Fishy has the ability to not only breathe water, but oxygen as well. Then, all the worlds oceans dry up and he is forced to move onto land. He uses the air-breathing-system-thingy and loses the water-breathing-system-thingy. Then millions and trillions of years later, the atmophere becomes toxic to anything that has the water-breathing-system-thingy. Subsequently, Mr. Fishy lives and spreads his happy little seed as a direct result of losing that other stuff. How is that not evolution again?

P.S. You might want to tell these guys they have it wrong- dictionary.com😀

If all the world's oceans dried up how could mr fishy evolve if there is no water for him to live in? How would he just miraciously have legs? His gills just become usless and he starts breathing through his mouth? How is that possible?

Oh, just wait, the answer is that it took a million billion trillion years.

we're taking this analogy a bit too far, in reality, what would have happened is that there was more food on land, or some other aspect that would have made the ability to do things on land beneficial to mr. fishy. mr. fishy's less capable neighbors would then be at an obvious disadvantage to mr. fishy. so while mr. fishy can only flop around on land for say, 30 seconds at a time, just enough to grab some more food, he has a more likely chance of finding food and surviving, thus a more likely chance of screwing mrs. fishy.